Alex Kurtzman’s directorial debut People Like Us hits theaters in two weeks, and while out promoting the movie he is also talking a little Star Trek. In a couple of new interviews the co-writer/producer of the sequel explains why the team chose to delay instead of rushing it out for a 2012 release. He also confirmed our earlier report about no Trek for next month’s San Diego Comic Con. [UPDATE 2: Also talks about Benedict Cumberbatch & ‘connected’ USS Enterprise sets]

Update 2: Kurtzman on Cumberbatch & ‘Connected’ USS Enterprise sets

Another People Like Us Interview has cropped up at CinemaBlend, where Alex talks about sequel villain Benedict Cumberbatch, saying:

There are certain actors who have the ability to take a line of dialogue and add a ring to it that you didn’t even know you put into the dialogue, into the line. And he’s one of those really brilliant actors…Sequels are about your bad guy. Because your first movie is always about the becoming of [the hero] and your bad guy has to test that hero in a very significant way. And he’s an incredibly formidable presence. He’s amazing. Are you going to be scared of him? Shit yeah!”

In a previous article we reported on how the USS Enterprise sets were "connected" for the sequel, allowing more shots of characters moving around the ship. Kurtzman spoke to Collider about how this new configuration opened things up for director JJ Abrams

J.J. was brilliant, in building the sets that way, because what he wanted to do was be able to play whole scenes without a cut, as you were literally moving through this huge, huge ship.

Original article

Kurtzman on why Star Trek sequel moved from 2012 to 2013 + Says no Trek at SDCC

The original plan for thesequel to JJ Abrams’ Star Trek was for it to be released on June 29, 2012 (which is in just two weeks). But when it came time to finalize the script and get pre-production started in the spring/early summer of 2011, other projects (especially Super 8 for JJ Abrams and Bryan Burk) were keeping the team from focusing on Trek. In a new interview (with Movies.com) co-writer/producer Alex Kurtzman explains how the team could have stuck with the original plan, but we may not have liked the results…

We collectively as the brain trust – J.J. [Abrams] and Damon [Lindelof] and me and Bob [Orci] and Bryan Burk – decided that in order to protect Trek, we had to delay it by one year. We just didn’t want to rush it. We felt that we had put so much love into the first movie, and we didn’t want a mandate to ruin the work that everyone had done. And I think the fans deserve to feel that their beloved franchise is being protected. So we delayed for a year to really work on the script, to have the time to shoot the movie correctly, and I’m really excited with what J.J. did. I think we all are.

Kurtzman also expressed a similar sentiment to ComingSoon.com about the Star Trek delay, saying

Here’s the thing about Trek. Part of why we delayed a year was because we didn’t want to rush it, just because we feel very beholden to the franchise and we feel very protective of it and the worst thing we can do is to put it out there before we felt like we were ready and we were still working on the story."

So while it is unfortunate that the team ended up overbooked for their time in 2010/2011, at least they recognized this and didn’t just phone it in on Star Trek. As fans, of course we all wish there was a new movie opening in two weeks (as per the original plan), but if the only way for that to happen was for it to be a rush job, then waiting another 11 months is worth it.

I don’t know. If it’s all down to the editing and FX teams – and the story is sound with all footage needed shot…

Then Paramount find themselves in dire straits, films which were supposed to be out in 2012, now being juggled around because they’re not ready – They NEED something BIG and with a guaranteed audience, to mark 100 Years anniversary publicity.

Personally I’m glad to see you guys taking your time and treating Trek with the attention it deserves. I only hope this will generate enough interest to put another Star Trek series on the small screen too

I also agree that you shouldn’t rush things either and put out a great film but also waiting to long could be bad for a film also. Like I said before that waiting to long and you could loose momentum for the sequel.

People are either interested or they are not. The publicity for the sequel is there for those who care to take notice. It’s just not in your face and thank goodness for that. Come January next year and I think it will be a different story and so it should be.

People Like Us is what needs promoting now and does need to do well at the Box Office so that Dreamworks SKG will be more inclined to seek distributors to give the movie international coverage. Not happy right now in that regard…

I am happy about how the Star Trek sequel appears to be coming together. Keep up the good work, guys!

It took about a dozen years to get TOS to the big screen. . . . It took this group 1/3 of that time to get around to making their sequel. . . . I think they could have treated their fan base with a little more respect. Every 3 years is pushing the envelope (a la Star Wars), but 4 years (+?) to wait is above and beyond in my humble opinion.

To add to my previous comment – I do think some people are catastrophizing a bit re delay and lack of trailers and publicity. The fact is that people are being reminded of Star Trek in subtle, natural, “organic” (Far Strider used the word “organic” – good description).

As an example, Benedict Cumberbatch has received mention and an article in the local (NZ) TV Guide, which has a wide readership, re the Sherlock series, but in there was mention given to his being in the next Star Trek movie and giving its 2013 release date.

Margin Call, the movie, has been showing in cinemas here. Zachary Quinto, among others, has been mentioned, along with him playing Star Trek’s Spock…
Karl Urban has had some press re his house being on the market and mention was made of him playing Dr McCoy in the new Star Trek.

This is what appears in local magazines and newspapers, as well as on their websites just as a matter of fact to do with these actors.

They should have began thinking about
sequels and production as soon as Trek2009
came out & showed to be a success… but
writing didn’t begin until about a whole year
later…
I agree wholeheartedly with Mickey. They
should have treated the fan base with more
respect –
It’s obvious they want to please, but only
a little bit.

Having the same team turn to the Star Trek sequel right after the 2009 just wasn’t going to happen, and I dont think it is exactly fair to begrudge them of that.

The new era for Star Trek is that Paramount has assigned it to an “A Team” who are in demand on both the big and small screen. All of them wanted to do other projects before diving into another Star Trek. Paramount could have brought in a new team but chose to stick with the same team and everyone hoped that they could do other projects and return to Trek and get all that done in 3 years. It turns out that they couldn’t.

So the choices are, we could have got a Star Trek film with a new team in 2011, a rushed film from the same team in 2012 or a film where they took their time in 2013.

17. Anthony… of course, we’ll have to see the finished product before we can really decide which was the correct course of action for Paramount. Not all of us agree that Trek 2009 was a great movie which demanded the same team do Trek 12. (I think Trek 2009 is only the third best Trek movie.) And I for one am very worried that if this movie is indeed Khan Redux, that Mr. Cumberbatch is all wrong for the part, and the movie will face blistering, negative comparisons to Ricardo Montalban’s iconic performance.

From Paramount’s perspective, changing teams would be a clearly risky move. Their last two Trek features were disappointments, now they had their new favorite director create a clear hit with critics, general movie goers and the vast majority of fans. In 2005 the studio was talking about franchise fatigue and now they had a real hit on their hands. It would be crazy for them to say, no we cant wait 3 years, lets bring in a brand new team so we can do it in 2 (which still would have been a rush job with a new team getting up to speed).

Sure the proof will be in the film. But from the studio perspective, there really wasn’t a choice here. That being said if they were given the choice of new team/2years vs. same team/4 years it might have been a harder call, but the studio itself was part of the reason for the delay. Remember they also added Mission Impossible IV to Abrams/Burk’s production slate.

I agree, that 2 years later with the same team would have been problematic, but 3 years later with a new team is a much tougher call. 2 1/2 years later with a new team is what Paramount got with “Wrath of Khan” (arguably the most profitable Trek movie to date, based on its tiny budget and big box office), and that could have been a powerful counter-argument against a not changing horses (Trek 2012 was critically much more successful than TMP, but financially not that different). 4 years later with the same team is exactly what we got with “Nemesis” and that didn’t work out too well for Paramount, something else that must be weighing heavily on certain Paramount managers. Paramount can be at least partially blamed for the delay, just as they can be partially blamed for the failure of Insurrection and Nemesis, two severely under-budgeted movies. But if Trek 2013 flops, few will actually blame Paramount. Just as Nemesis gets blamed mostly on Baird.

the star trek II example is not relevent. The studio was not happy with TMP and they wanted to change teams. Plus STII was a smaller production. There really was never any discussion at Paramount about changing teams. It was more like, “hey JJ, we loved that one, can you make another?” and he said “sure, but I want to do something else first” and they were “OK” and that was that.

And if Paramount brought in a new team in 2009 instead of waiting for JJ, there would have been a huge uproar from the entertainment media and probably most of the fans as it would have been a clear craven move on Paramount to cash in as quickly as possible, instead of sticking with their A Team. Unless of course they brought in a huge name, but it isn’t likely that a huge name would want to come in and do it unless they could change everything to suit their vision (and that would be unlikely).

bottom line is Paramount made the only rational choice based on the infomration it had at the time.
In 2013 it will prove to be a smart call or not.

The Dark Knight came out in 2008. The Dark Knight Rises comes out next month. That is a four year gap and I have not heard anyone complain about that amount of time between those sequels, so why are you all complaining about the four-year-gap for Star Trek? I do not think there will be “loss of momentum” or anything. This movie will do well if it is marketed well and is a good movie that hits across many demographics, not because of the amount of time elapsed since the previous movie.

If the sequel ends up sucking balls, it’ll have more to do with the fact the writers wrote a crappy script above anything else. But, on the other hand, the extra year will be seen as a boon if the sequel is great. And if the sequel is great, no one will care that they had to wait an extra year to watch it.

If they had rushed the movie, and it came out in 2011 or even this year, and it sucked, then everyone would be crying out over that.

A new team would have changed things drastically, or they would have made a poorly imitated version of J.J Abrams’ film. A potential no-win situation right there.

So the delay was the best route possible. If it sucks, then it just comes down to a poor screenwriting performance by the writers/director. They’ll take the blame, not Paramount.

But judging by the fact they spent the last year working so hard on the film, I have to think the delay gave them more room to work with, to allow for more care to be taken with regards to the quality of the script, and the film itself.

I completely agree that Cumberbatch will be an amazing villain.
My wife and I just saw him last week in Danny Boyle’s “Frankenstein” play (via Fathom Events at our local AMC movie theatre). His interpretation of the monster was similar to John Hurt’s elephant man initially; a physically deformed man irrationally hated and feared, but clinging to his decency. By the end, he turns; a lifetime of rejection and fear literally (finally) making him into a monster. His performance (and the play itself) simply blew me away.

And of course, he is brilliant in BBC’s “Sherlock.” When I first heard he was in the ST sequel, all I could think was “this will be brilliant!” It was one of the most exciting casting coups in all of Star Trek history, IMO.

As long as they remember that Klingon ships are battlecruisers not warbirds and that the medical section is called sickbay I’ll be happy. Coming from an old school trekker who loved the new movie those were the only things that really ground my gears (budgineering notwithstanding). I’ve had way too much to drink and this has taken a pathetically long time to type out on my phone I will bid you nice folks a fond ado.

25… Because the last time we had a four year gap between movies, the result was far, far from worth the wait. Just because Bad Robot has had an extra year to work with doesn’t mean this movie will be any better for it, especially if they still have their eyes on other properties and are just using Trek to get a paycheck while they go off to make Super 9 or Cowboys & Aliens 2 or whatever.

27. Mr. Cumberbatch is excellent in Sherlock, but that’s the only thing I’ve seen him in, the same can probably be said for most of us here. (Did anyone see “War Horse”? Hello? Anyone?) My only serious complaint about him is he’s just not right for Khan. That and we were told after Paramount wanted a big star to bring in international audiences and what we got is a great actor who has never been in what can remotely be considered a blockbuster on either side of the Atlantic.

As for the time it took to get the new Batman movie out well, Im pretty ‘meh’ on that one too so, at least for me, thats not a good example. My interest in the Nolan Batman has pretty much worn off at this point especially considering the success of Avengers…now THATS the super hero movie Ive been waiting for. Time will tell but I wasnt thrilled with JJ Trek to begin with and having to wait 4 years to give them a second chance didnt exactly inspire me.

Thorny; he’s not playing Khan, remember? That rumor’s pretty much been put to bed already (by no less than Simon Pegg himself, and with no denial from the powers-that-be).

And yes, his role in “War Horse” was good, but I’d hardly call it his signature work. He was far more memorable in 2004’s “Hawking” as well (in addition to “Sherlock”). And as I’ve said, his “Frankenstein” was incredible. And even though it was a stage play (with he and Johnny Lee Miller alternating roles on different nights), I’d love to see it on DVD someday….

“Sequels are about your bad guy. Because your first movie is always about the becoming of [the hero] and your bad guy has to test that hero in a very significant way”

That just confirms it for me they just dont get what makes great Star TREK. the best stories in Star TREK is not about the Villian.
The best stories are about Kirk Spock, Bones,Scotty,Chekov,Uhura,and Sulu.

Even TWOK was not Khan’s story it was the story of Kirk,Spock,Bones and the rest of the crew.
TWOK,VOYH,TUC were not villian driven they were driven by the crew.
Yea Montalban, and Plummer, are incredbile in their performances but its not them that make those movies,

JJ and crew Trek is not star wars, quit trying to make it into star wars, its not. Trek has always been best when its about thoughtful and making a comment on the human condition or mirrors the current climate in society.

I know the JJ appologist will all be clammering over my comments, but I dare you to prove me wrong. (with more than anticdotal evidence)

Especially after revisiting the E.T. interview with Nick Meyer, Harve Bennet, and Deforest Kelly it just really reminds when coupled with the comments in this article that they(jj AND crew) just dont get it.
I know I will still enjoy the new movie, but iam afraid it will be a hollow enjoyment.

Please Orci, Kurtzman, and JJ please please please prove me wrong give us a great movie that tells a great story on the level of the best in classic TREK.

oh and just for the record i went to an advanced screening of People Like us and I really enjoyed it.

In the meantime, “The Avengers” was written, produced, released, and praised, AND put a jillion dollars in the bank – in half the time it’s taken these no-talent diletantes to jerk around and crap out what is certain to be another flashy, empty, mediocre disappointment.

JJ and crew, Please remember Trek is not star wars, quit trying to make it into star wars, its not
. Trek has always been best when its about thoughtful story telling,
When it is making a comment on the human condition, or mirrors the current climate in society

30. I hope you’re right about Khan, but I’m sticking with Anthony’s word until we get something official. I can just see someone in a few months confronting Pegg, “You said it wasn’t Khan. You lied!”. Pegg: “I exaggerated! When I said it was just a myth, I meant our Khan takes on mythical proportions.”

#35 “They couldnt have delayed their other movies and spent that time to release Trek sooner?” It’s really a moot point now. It’s coming out, not any sooner and not any later. So the what-ifs are all irrelevant.

#31 totally agree – the best stories of ST are NOT about the bad guy – they are about the Trek Crew with the “bad guy of the day” merely being a vehicle around which the crew can explore issues of morality, ethics, philosophy etc This is the main reason why Trek proved to be so popular – it was a collection of moral fables. Simply put, Trek is not the “monster of the day” phenomenon that JJ and co seem intent on pursuing and while they do this, Nu Trek will never be on my favorites list. Yes, Trek 2009 was a nice space action movie but it had nothing to do with Star Trek.

I have to disagree with the delay being good. Not rushing it is good, don’t get me wrong, but there gets to a point where too much time has passed and the momentum the first movie built up is gone. I think this has happened. Of course us fans are still stoked, but the general public will have forgotten how much fun they had seeing the first movie. I had this very talk today with my cousin who grew up watching TOS but wasn’t much of a Trekkie and he agreed. Putting the movie out this year would have been the last chance to capture any of the enthusiasm of the first. Now they’re going to have to work extra hard promoting it to compensate.

I agree with you points. Let’s hope Bad Robot was thinking about your points when they made the film. I think Star Trek can have big action but it should be about ideas. Philosophy. Science. Take for example the TOS episode “Arena.” Big action. But it had ideas. Was the Federation wrong? The trait of mercy. Great stuff.

I’m just disappointed there’s nothing at SDCC for this movie,a really missed opportunity. Maybe NYCC in October? I’ll still see the movie next year of course,just not that excited about it…..yet. And if Khan IS the villain,I won’t be excited for this at all. I don’t want Khan,plain and simple,lol! And since I’m a Trekker and not a Trekkie,I guess I’m just on the fence for now,lol!

While my instinct is to rebel against it, I have to admit that this “organic” marketing technique probably does more good than harm at this point. It truly is too early for spoilers (I still don’t think a title is a spoiler though!).

I agree with DanielCraig about what Star Trek is about. Yet, if anyone remembers, the teaser slogan for Star Trek 2009 was “This ain’t your father’s Star Trek”. Keep in mind that we’re dealing with a different kind of machine, a hybrid animal, so to speak. Accepting it for what it is will give you more peace of mind.

Another thing: Alex expanded on ONE aspect of the movie: the villain. I love villains and anti-heroes so I’m very curious and excited to see Benedict in this. But I doubt that the movie centers around a hero/villain theme. Especially considering how much time and new talent they’re putting into this. We should feel flattered that Bad Robot has the wherewithal to know the kind of quality we expect. I, for one, am very excited to see what they’ve done! (^_^)

imho i am glad we have a team on trek that cares….a lot about trek…also think jj n team are one of the hottest movie talents out there…most trek stories were about something bigger than just a villin but more often than not they had villains,whether misunderstood alien kids or salt monsters..often the crew were villains bad kirk,drunk sulu,evil universe crew etc…its harder in an expensive action movie to fit in the nuances n depth of characters u can do over time on tv….understanding trek as the do i am sure they will try for more depth this time around now that they, the crew are together now t boldly go…,
comedy channel showed the shatner roast again the other day—remnds me of 1st watching it on a screen in one of the stores at the experence on sunday last nite of the 40th year of trek convention in vegas in 2006 my one n only convention so far…we were all really shocked at how rude n crude the roast was…

I’m all for the delay. I’d rather a piece of quality filmmaking over something rushed to make a bit of money. The Supreme Court’s handling in this area is to be admired, I feel. It shows respect to the fans. As does the secrecy. It has us all on the edges of our seats with anticipation but it just makes for a more fulfilling watch once the arses are on cinema seats in the end.

I’m with the “I don’t mind waiting for a quality film” crowd. It wouldn’t matter to me if we had to wait 5 more years for another Trek movie anyway, because my love of Star Trek goes on all the time– in-between series, in-between movies, after show cancellations, after reading a book… The new stuff is inevitable, and time is what it is. But my enjoyment of Star Trek is not totally based on just getting new stuff.

Probably most of us (if not all) wouldn’t know what to do with $150,000,000 if Paramount said, “Here, make a Star Trek movie.” It’s a cool fantasy, but if you’ve read anything about movie-making you know it is a tremendous undertaking. To start with, just writing a Trek story that not only the fans will like, but will appeal to a wider audience, is a risk. Even in this new form, Star Trek still carries a lot of baggage and you can only break away from that so far before it could no longer be called Star Trek. Next, try actually filming it…

So, while some people are yammering about having to wait for the next film, truth is there’s more of a chance the movie would suck by getting it out sooner rather than later. The one thing we can all agree on is that we don’t want a disappointing sequel. And it looks like Kurtzman and friends are doing everything they can to make sure we aren’t disappointed by taking their time. They shouldn’t be criticized for that.

#43: Your point is entirely irrelevant. One does not need to be a famous person to comment on the works of famous people. Plus, you have NO idea who’s really behind the anonymous postings on this site.

I am happy with Star Trek having an A List Team of People. Bob Orci and the Court are very talented and gifted Writter’s and Director’s and better yet. They all Love Star Trek and want only the best for it. As a Hard Core Fan. I can live with the wait. If only to have a fantastic Movie.

I’ve been rewatching TOS on Netflix and one things it’s driven home for me was the concept of exploring new worlds and meeting new aliens. I know we’re probably not going to see that with Trek 2012 but I think Star Trek in general needs to get back to that concept. Get out there and find something new, something we haven’t seen before. That’s what I’d like to see.

The mistake was making “Pooper 8″ a priority over Trek and causing delays to the project that was already a year or more behind what it should have been. We could have had Trek in 2011 and the third in 2013. Their priorities shifted and Trek suffered. Who even saw or remembers “Pooper 8″?

First, the idea of no new TV series on the horizon and only movies every few years was the state ST existed in and thrived on from about 1974 (post TAS) to about 1987 (the debut of TNG) and I personally remember that era as a very exciting one for fandom. And when the movies began coming in 1979, it was even better. They felt like a reward for our collective patience as ST fans (no matter one’s relative opinion on TMP, it was a great-looking Christmas present that year….).

Frankly, at this point with over 700 hours of ST out there? I’d prefer ST not to be bled to death as it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. That over-saturation was part of what killed it; after so many hours of TV it reached a kind of ‘zombification’ that became kind of hard to watch after awhile. The series’ all began to look and sound the same after awhile. It was a franchise on autopilot. Dramatically asleep, and rarely taking chances….

Then, ST09 came along and ST felt fresh again. With a nice, 7 year nap it had time for a new creative team to tackle it (not too unlike the situation with “The Wrath of Khan” back in 1982) and more importantly; the franchise properly recharged it’s batteries. The box office disparity between “Nemesis” and ST09 would seem to support that as well.

Personally? I’m in no hurry to see ST rushed back to a lower budget grind of a TV series. Or weekly stories about gaseous anomalies and temporal distortions and tachyon subspace inversion fields, blah, blah, blah. Been there, done that. And with 700 hours of it in the bag, there’s PLENTY to fall back on should I ever get sentimental. IMO, ST at it’s current stage of evolution, fits perfectly on the big screen as a rare event to be looked forward to and savored.

To paraphrase Harve Bennett; better to have a full Thanksgiving meal every few years than cold turkey sandwiches every week…

“you could have done it without jj. I swear if Johnathan Franks had directed the 2009 script, it would have been a LOT better.”

That is a truly amazing statement. Let me ask you did you ever see Jonathan Frakes “Insurrection”?

That’s a great idea that only a ST fanboy would come up with. Lets get rid of one of the hottest directors working in film today whose last ST film single handedly revived a franchise that was on life support and got the masses involved in ST for the first time in decades for an ok director of tv programs who hasn’t directed a major motion picture (thats assuming you want to call “Insurrection” a major motion picture) in 14 years.

There is a long list of films that had enormous potential, but were rushed into production for make money for the studio. I would much rather wait an extra year and have a creative team that is in great demand deliver a quality product than have a mediocre director pump out a half baked film.

It’s about time someone at Paramount decided to go with quality over quantity in regards to ST…Well done.

If Paramount really wanted to they could rush this now on post production & have it ready for end of 2012 but it would double the post pro budget as they would need ILM to do 24/7 shifts (its been done before) but the costs rise so much the film would not be profitable.

Summer 2013 gives enough time to tweak & enhance the footage otherwise you would see a lesser movie (which no-one wants). More often than not nowadays movies are rushed to make a release date & the onscreen results are always a letdown.

Glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t relish the idea of a new ST series (at least for now). The movies are gifts. More TV episodes would begin to feel like groceries…

If ST ever DOES return to TV (and I’m not saying that it never should), I’d prefer that it came back when it actually had something new and significant to say (as TOS did back in the ’60s), and not just be a show about seven new officers aboard a new starship doing the same old thing. There are so many hours of ST out there to choose from that I really doubt a rushed-into-production TV series at the current time would really say anything we haven’t heard on the show already.

I feel sorry for the producers/writers on Star Trek. What a load of wingers posting on here. If you are indicative of what the trek fanbase is like its a thankless task being involved in these films.

I’m only going to see this film for Benedict but it certainly looks like I wont be dipping my toe in the trek fanbase thats for sure. I’ll stick to the much happier Sherlock/Cumberbatch sites thanks very much.

@ #62 Robert – Yup, I reckon you’re absolutely right that there won’t be much of that in this sequel either, and that we definately need a lot more of that kind of thing moving forward with these movies.

‘Prometheus’ may have been a bit of a mess in many ways, but at least it had that kind of vibe about it which was pretty good at times.

I think I’m in the lot of no more tv show’s. I don’t want to see a continuation of the Berman era Trek even if they move it a 100 or 200 years in the future of TNG. Now if they re-boot TOS. I might be be ok with that.

Yeah! Exactly! I hated it when they didn’t call it Sick Bay and instead referred to it as “medical.” Why? Why? Why?

The warbird thing didn’t bother me as much, though.

Scotty’s last line of the movie did bother me: “dilithium crystals at maximum.” Maximum what? That line made absolutely no sense. I liked to good old days of TNG technobabble when the writers made SOME attempt at having the tech make sense.

I think there is a very real third possibility. The first two, as discussed by Kurtzman, are:
1) a rushed, and therefore bad, sequel;
2) a non-rushed sequel that shows love and respect for the franchise;
and
3) which I feel is most likely, is waiting four years for another Star Trek movie which is more spectacle and “Star Wars like,” brought to us by the crew that dumbed down Trek, giving us Nero (the villian that is angry and blows up planets) and says nothing about the human condition but is full of fireworks.
Judging by Prometheus, and their Star Trek movie, I see little reason for #2, but lots of reasons to expect a long wait for mostly empty fluff, but might make the studio some bucks. Whoo-hoo.
I miss Star Trek.
And to those who say Trek must evolve, I agree. It must evolve. But “evolving” and “dumbing down” are not the same thing. Change can, and should be for the better. And by better I don’t mean it makes tons of money for studios. Maybe they do.

Many corporations run on deadlines, but Paramount seems to like spending all its ‘Transformers’ profits on re-jigging tentpole films after completion of shooting. The new Michael Bay ‘Turtles’ film was stopped in pre-production, so someone must have put his thinking cap on just in time.

In that environment, it makes it easier to understand all the corporate double-speak coming from Supreme Court members while they’re out promoting other projects. Kurtzman here is admitting they had a shitty script which required massive re-writes, so the SC all went and focused on other projects until Abrams was free, following ‘Super 8.’

When JJ finally signed on, the script was center of focus once again. When they began shooting, Cumberbatch, having signed on days before, and after some high-profile hiring gaffes, ZQ admitted the teleplay is ‘still evolving,’

Put that all in the context of the major problems afflicting Paramount’s other breakout tentpoles, and it does not paint a pretty picture.

Well, i disagree with you guys. Star Trek 2009 was pure star trek. If anything had to do with the star wars feeling you mention was the sharpness of the special effects. Then again, this is a good thing. ILM has done more star trek movies than starwars..

Scotty’s last line of the movie did bother me: “dilithium crystals at maximum.” Maximum what? That line made absolutely no sense. I liked to good old days of TNG technobabble when the writers made SOME attempt at having the tech make sense.

***

In other words, you miss the TNG days when they wrote it so that you didn’t know they didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.

Technobabble isn’t even real science. Or at least very rarely is it in Star Trek. It’s crypto-nonsense.

The movie as industrial product is produced in a semi mechanical fashion on a semi rigid timescale. Like everything else in the world of business, it’s about numbers. Documenting, counting, measuring, and making everyone behave according to some sequence of numbers, which they hope will eventually translate into spendable numbers that go into bank accounts so that all the folks involved who have them can continue to live stratospherically numerical existences.

But the exclusive focus on numbers is also what makes CRAP. Yes, you can paint by the numbers, and then you’ll have a paint-by-the-numbers painting.

The movie as art does not care about numbers. And artists function on a very different level than businessmen.

Commercial movies, such as Star Trek is, exist at a junction between art and commerce where there is a push-pull relationship between creators and financiers.

For people like Bob Orci, who swim in the whirlpool where art and commerce mix, resistance is not futile. Resistance to a speedily produced product that cannot meet the standard he wants to achieve for the integrity of the work he produces and for the sake of his own conscience in producing it, becomes feedback on the business side which lets the corporate heads know to let off pressure because the time is not right FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT IS. It doesn’t much matter from a quality standpoint whether the reason is that they have too much on their plate, if certain members are unavailable, if the script is not satisfactory, or a combination of all those and other things.

Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and JJ Abrams do not want to make crap, and Paramount wants those guys doing Star Trek right now. It’s as simple as that. And there isn’t a single alternative person for Paramount to go to who cares enough what the fans think to interact with them on a regular basis right here on Trekmovie. All by itself that is enough for me to want Bob and Co. to stay in charge of things, regardless of the time it takes to get sequels.

Now there is no guarantee that some of you WILL like what they’ve come up with — but rushing it through when they were uncomfortable for all the reasons they had to wait longer so that they didn’t feel that way anymore…would certainly have resulted in something even worse.

Alex K., its funny to read quotes like “shit yeah!” Coming from a sophisticated writer. So stokked! After seeing Frankenstein, i have no doubts about Cumberhunk. My fear and expectation is that he will steal the show-never to be seen again. Oh well…

I believe it’s fan hypocrisy that gets them ignored by TPTB. They will stop at no end to defend mindless action garbage like First Contact, but if you are in a new universe there is suddenly an entirely different set of standards for your movie.

Hell, I saw Basement Blogger attempt to defend a Borg comic book in the other thread and he is definitely one of the “new Trek needs to be a lot smarter than old Trek” liars.

I’m more than willing to wait for something high quality than to get crap next week.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again- I trust Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, et.al. to do it right and well. Waiting is a pain, but there’s plenty to enjoy between now and then- including the comic series (yes, it’s quite good), other Trek releases and celebrations, and the upcoming game.

I’m really looking forward to seeing what they do with the uber-talented Cumberbatch.

I myself am getting kind of exasperated with the gloom and doom. I’ve only expressed impatience with there not being a title or a teaser ( maybe a couple other things). I’m over that now. No amount of typing will move the release date up! But when you go back and read this thread, you do realize that it’s quite negative.

There’s little-to-no fan support behind this group of guys, which is sad because I think they’d really appreciate a few allies right now–especially from the fanbase. And like dmduncan said, there aren’t many other directors/writers who would give a crap about what we like/don’t like. If JJ wasn’t in charge we’d have a lot more to complain about than a delayed release.

@74 Guest: You are absolutely right. If I were to visit this site for the first time and read this thread I would be appalled by the whining and griping myself. Sherlock is a great show, and Mr. Cumberbatch is an excellent actor. I support his career as well and hope that you don’t hold anything against the Trek franchise because of some disgruntled “fans”.

92. Agreed, absolutely. What bugs me about “Star Trek has always been about ideas!!” line is that it’s not strictly true. What “ideas” were in Trek II, other than (good) human bits about vengance, purpose, etc. The ideas that were there in episodes often were half-baked and clunkily presented. It’s like the folks calling Prometheus genius.

92. Agreed, absolutely. What bugs me about “Star Trek has always been about ideas!!” line is that it’s not strictly true. What “ideas” were in Trek II, other than (good) human bits about vengance, purpose, etc. The ideas that were there in episodes often were half-baked and clunkily presented. It’s like the folks calling Prometheus genius…

I guess that expains why Nero was lame as a villain in the first movie, they concentrated everything on the heroes… riiiiiight…..
And the second movie was delayed because of all the important and great projects the keepers devoted their energies to instead of Trek. [Cowboys and Aliens anyone. Anyone?].
It doesn’t bother me that these guys are cramming as much as they can into their schedules while they are hot; I’d do the same thing.
What bothers me is they are so disingenuous about what really happened.
They had chances to make a lot of money somewhere besides Star Trek- partly because of Star Trek- and therefore Trek got shoved to a back burner.
I am just happy that Roddenberry, Bennett, Braga, Behr, Pillar, Moore, Berman, and all the others who kept the flame burning were honest about it and devoted their professional time to it. We deserved it then, we deserve at least that consideration now.
Hopefully Paramount will turn Trek over to someone more like the former keepers than the latter day keepers when this group runs their course; and unlike Rick Berman, I hope the next keepers figure out when they are running dry creatively and gracefully step aside.

capt caveman
I hope to hell they drop all the darn lens flares. It is really annoying. Good camera makers produce cameras with hoods etc to stop flares and good directors know when to re shoot because there is a bad flare so come on you guys drop the flares and concentrate on a good film!

I like Cowboys and Aliens. Read the comic book before seeing the movie. The book sucked! It was so 1-Demensional! The movie was quite enjoyable though. If I hadn’t read some of the opinions here, I would’ve had no doubt that it was well-received.

101 if you honestly think that star trek II is only about Vengence, then I feel sorry for you.
At the core of the movie, Its about comming to terms with getting older, and realizing that even though you thought you were immortal when you were younger, you really arent, but that you can still make a difference. Its about family and about Sacrafice.

Its sad if you just see wrath of khan as a story of vengence then you really just dont get it.

#103 Bob Orci
I will be going to The Amazing Spider Man probably opening night. It looks awesome! Also, very excited about Ender’s Game (read that book in high school). Curious about the mood you’ll be going for in Ender’s Game: darker, lighter, hard scifi, a little fantasy, realistic?

Also, will you be keeping true to the characters (personality, phsicality, age especially). I wonder if your story will start where the book starts…idk, just excited. You’ll probably release some info on that so no need to answer my question just now. But just wondering.

addition to my post 111
Those ideas are repeated through out the film, on numerous points, in particular
Spock’s birthday present to Jim, and the conversation that follows
Jim’s Birthday at his apartment in San Fran, and his conversation with Bones.
The scene between Bones and Jim after Carol Marcus comes into the picture.
the whole sequence after Khan first attacks the enterprise and kirks response that he did nothing but get caught with his pants down.
The whole Genesis cave sequence where Kirk comes to grips with the choices he made in his life both personal and proffesional.

And lets not forget the sacrafice that Spock makes for his crew
, and jim having to come to grips with it.
and The funeral and jims Eulogy for spock
and once more the main idea is repeated with jim when on the bridge talking to carol and bones, while looking at Genesis on the viewscreen.

and those are just the main parts where the core tennants of the story are present there are many more cleverly woven and hidden through out the story as well.

101
what makes star trek II so great, is that its a story that EVERYONE can relate to, We all arrive at that point in our life where we get old and realize we are not the immortal never say die types we thought we were in our youth, we all have to experience that point where you get your pride and ego handed to you on a platter, we all experince loss and sacrafice as we get older, and we ALL have to deal with and come to terms with death.

thats the beauty of TWOK, it really in its simplest form is a story of another part of the human condition

It was the perfect story choice with this group of characters and actors at that time in their life.
there is a reason why Khan and Kirk arent ever in the same room togeather in TWOK, its not KHAN’S story, the focus is not about KHAN, it never was no matter how some people want to try and reinterpret it.

I really am anxious to learn the title. Every movie has to have a title, but I don’t think there is a perfect title for this one. Like someone stated earlier, the fact they used the title of “Star Trek” for the 2009 movie painted themselves into a corner.

It can’t be called 12, or XII, or II, or 2. It really should avoid “Star Trek: Something something” to distinguish it from the TNG films, and yet it should still have “Star Trek” in the title.

BUT: an imperfect title won’t hurt the box office or critiques, so whatevs. Just call it something!

Yesterday was the premiere of “People Like Us” at the LA Film Festival … I’ve seen very positive reviews about the movie … I can not wait to see the film, although I have no idea when it will debut on the moon .. LOL

Mr Orci can we have a still from the film. Preferably involving Cumberbatch so fans on tumblr can freak out over it for the next few months.You cant please old trek fans based on whats being said on here so why not entice the new fans. We at least are excited and looking forward to the film.

Even though I’m anxious to see at least a teaser for the new movie I can wait a little longer. I only hope that the new movie is as brilliant as the last one! I loved Star Trek 2009! Mr Orci and everyone else involved thank you for your great work!

When I heard ‘scary’, the first thing that popped into mind was Gary Mitchell, perhaps because of those startling silver eyes, and his creepy godlike powers. It could be interesting- seeing someone who was good initially, tried to use his powers for good, and then succumbed to the seduction of too much power.

Completely agree. this is just going to be more good guy versus bad guy Holllywood junk – that much has been confirmed now. on that note, I am off. I am not going to waste any more time on what will be formulaic, Hollywood action film junk. good luck Benedict – I am sure you did a great job but this film will be so far beneath you.

It is apity as the Trek premise does have real potential to be so much better than this.

You can’t really give a story a title without knowing what it’s about.

Then again the first reboot went just with Star Trek. So it’s more an observation this series could just the catchphrases for the subtitle.

The split infinitive is the most well known. Even if publicising it to reviewers opens up to the obvious hairloss or toilet jokes. But by then, you got their attention and you keep them with the plot, how well the actors got on, and the others who were scary, and never broke character during their lunchbreaks.

“Agreed, absolutely. What bugs me about “Star Trek has always been about ideas!!” is that it’s not strictly true. What “ideas” were in Trek II, other than (good) human bits about vengance, purpose, etc. The ideas that were there in episodes were often half-baked and clunkily presented. It’s like the folks calling Prometheus genius.”

Dude, TWOK had a lot of depth to it. It wasn’t just about Khan. Sure some of the focus was obviously on him, and his desire to get revenge on Kirk, but the film also touched on aging, life and death. As well as reconnecting to and resolving the past (Admiral Kirk encountering his son David, and Carol Marcus). All of those threads were interwoven brilliantly by Nick Meyer.

Just for that, Jack, you have no credibility at all when it comes to “Prometheus”.

“Q: If you can’t take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It’s not safe out here. It’s wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it’s not for the timid.”
_________

Thank you for piquing my curiosity, Christopher.

The full quote is delicious.

I might have liked that Q character, after all ( had I been a fan of Star Trek : The Next generation ).

@141. Thanks RDR. This also confirms the “original version” of Richard Verrier’s LA Time’s 13 January 2012 article where he had said that “script problems” had caused delays in production. Verrier corrected this afterwards — one might conjecture that one of the writing team asked for a correction. But it is now clear that Verrier’s original story was correct after all, as was my take on this. I appreciate Kurtzman coming clean on this.

I’m not saying here that JJ’s schedule/commitments weren’t also a part of the delay — of course they were. What I am saying is that now we have a conclusive statement one of the Supreme Court writing team who is now telling as that PART OF THE REASON for the delay was that the script was not ready…just as Verrier and I were saying way back when.

You know, with all the dorky illegal pourn Trek tie ins….errrr, I mean, with all the legal “adult parody’s” of Trek, it is amazing that one of the the titles didn’t use “The Undiscovered Country,” as a title, with the “o” in “Country” being left out. LOL

Yep. TWOK had depth like crazy. And it had heart. It was about people. It was great. One of my favourite films. But it wasn’t an obvious comment on modern day issues (although, tha dangers of technology….), or a clunky moral parable — which a bunch of people here say Trek has to be and always was.

163 Harve Bennett was actually a succesfull television producer long before his association with star trek, as was pillar who produced a number of very succesful shows before Trek and two more succesful shows after trek until his death in 2005 as for Braga , Trek was where he started his career, Bragga has moved on as a writer and producer several show since trek including Terra Nova with Steven Spielberg, he created flash forward which was actually just as good any tv show that Abrams has created. and he wrote some great episodes of 24 as well.

@165. Agree totally. Harve Bennett pretty much did a bunch of stuff just like JJ is doing. He did a TV series after TWOK, and a TV move after TSFP. This Bob Tomkins guy (post @105) should get his facts straight before taking potshots like that. He is completely off base here.

Just watched Trek ’09 on FX a couple hours ago. While the things that bugged me about still bug me a little, I do like the energy the movies has—enough to power a small country!

At the very least, I’m looking forward to some more of that. The next one may be good. It may be bad. It may be something in between. But there’s a new one on the horizon, and that’s reason enough to celebrate.

Because then we can nitpick it to death!
Because we’re Trekkies! Dammit Jim, that’s what we do! ;)

Not sure if it was Braga,
But I remember reading an article where somebody associated with Flash Forward proimised the season finale would wrap things up if the ratings were low .
Well, the finale didnt answer anything conclusively.
That always made me mad .

Hey remember the “half a billion miles” comment Vickers made in Prometheus and how critics attacked the movie because that was obviously some huge scientific gaffe that the stupid writers let get by?

Remember that Neil de Grasse Tyson tweeted the error?

Well maybe Prometheus is smarter than its critics, because what they evidently don’t remember is that at the beginning of the space sequence when we are introduced to the Prometheus, we see words being typed across the screen that EXPLAIN STUFF. FACTual stuff about Prometheus. Remember that?

And one of the things those words lay out is Prometheus’ “DISTANCE FROM EARTH.”

And whatduhyaknow — it isn’t given as “half a billion miles.”

It is given as: 3.47×10^14 miles!

Vickers’ loose remark was nothing but words from a corporate head who knew nothing about space.

The gaffe was HERS, not the writers’ or director’s. The people who made Prometheus were smart enough not to make every character a purveyor of accurate information. Just as in life, people exaggerate and speak loosely, and it’s cool that they made her say that.

I have’t seen as much nerd rage over a movie as Prometheus in quite a long time. IMO if someone doesnt like the movie thats fine, heck say so. But some of these people who go on chat boards and actually root for a box office flop are just over board the top to me lol. Some of the critics are weird to.

I love it man, in fact I havent liked a movie this much since Star Trek 09. I cant wait to see where Scott takes it.

101 “At the core of the movie, Its about comming to terms with getting older, and realizing that even though you thought you were immortal when you were younger, you really arent, but that you can still make a difference. Its about family and about Sacrafice.”

Of course, it’s about people, and relationships and about the human condition (and regret and sacrifice and loyalty and purpose and lots and lots of stuff). It’s about these characters and it doesn’t treat them as legends but as people. That’s what’s so good about it. And tehre are intelligent discussions that aren’t merely exposition or hammy “this is the moral!” (although it does get close a couple of times, but pulls back) signals to the audience. My only point was that it wasn’t a preachy, creaky “Look this is a Big Smart Idea!” movie. People here say that Star Trek 2009 was about nothing, and well, it was indeed about some of those things as well. There have been people here who have said that JJ doesn’t get Star Trek after he said that he thought Trek was about family…

Sometimes, I think people need the characters to say “we’re asking big questions here!” and to liberally quote the bible and Shakespeare to convince them that it’s about something. And they have to be told exactly what it’s about.

My beefs with Prometheus are that the characters aren’t people, they’re characters (except Shaw) with a function in a script that you can see whirring away around you. The dialogue is mostly words on a page and the characters do what they do because the script requires it. This happens in a lot of movies. The ideas are interesting in and of themselves (where did we come from? if somebody made us, who made them? what if the answer is disappointing and doesn’t make any difference? why would they not only want to destroy us but make hell on earth? are there really consequences to good and evil and this is what they are? what’s the meaning of life if you’re only an experiment, or if you’re only the result of a random combination of chemicals/ Does intent make a difference?) but not as they’re presented in Prometheus, I’d argue. It doesn’t do anything with them, other than say a few them out loud — like the synposis on the back of a novel. It’s not a thoughtful movie, but, maybe people are thinking about those ideas because of it — so, maybe I’m wrong…

It’s a fine, gross-out, thrilling, action movie with some cool sci-fi elements, and it looks amazing — but it’s still a blockbuster summer pic, and that’s okay. They can’t all be Tree of Life (which some have called pretentious and simplistic).

These people seem to have no idea how to “protect” a franchise…Certainly NOT by delaying sequels. I’ve said it before. There has hardly been a major franchise that profited from a hiatus of more than three years, at least no financially…

Most franchise take a regular three year break. That’s okay, standard… But those that release sequels in shorter intervals are likely to be more successful… Just look at Harry Potter, Twilight, the Avengers, Transformers…

On the other hand, those that take too long to release a sequel are normally NOT successful enough anymore… It didn’t work for Terminator, nor for the Alien franchise, nor for Jurassic Park…

The sad thing is: it’s even not about quality! You simply have to stay part of public awareness…That’s all… If you’ve got a hit, release a sequel 18 months later… no matter how bad it will be, it’ll make A LOT more money than the most marvellous masterpiece brought out five years later…

It’s an urban myth that long hiati (?) / hiatuses serve any purpose in increasing interest in a franchise.

183. A very well-expressed point there. I simply do not get how anyone who saw ST09, who was not an uber-fan but who enjoyed it, is somehow going to magically forget they saw it and not want to see the sequel simply because a mere four years have elapsed.

MJ you are right there are plenty of films that have done great even after a hiatus including some you didnt mention such as Tron Legacy, Goldeneye, Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls especially Kingdom of the crystal skulls with its 18 year hiatus from last crusade.

I just have to note that your gross for godfather part 2 is the domestic gross while your gross for part 3 is the worldwide gross.

Agreed. But, in truth, *both* films had too much action and not enough detecting or character moments. Which is a pity because Downey and Law have great chemistry. I hope that someone else directs a third installment and treats the material properly.

I love when the fans get all spun up about what “we’re owed” and “what Star Trek is supposed to be about.” Please, get over it folks.

If most of these buffoons had the money and green light to produce a Trek movie of their own, it would be the biggest pile of fanwank crapola in the history of science fiction.

And, since every fan has their own personal little fantasy about what Star Trek ultimately should be, once again…you can’t please everybody. I like how JJ and Bob and Paramount have recognized and accepted that fact and not TRIED to please the fans…because they know that’s impossible. So, they’re out to make a story that is universally entertaining…not just some crappy nerdgasm aimed at the fan base. And then hey, if a bunch of the fans like it too by coincidence…then that’s a great thing! If not, oh well….can’t please all of them anyway. Too splintered. Too elitist. Too bogged down in what “MY STAR TREK” is supposed to be. Not open minded.

I APPRECIATE that the creative team wants to challenge us with something different for a change. Can’t wait to see what Bob and the crew have done with the new film to challenge us this time. I’d much rather be challenged than slapped with another tired, limp noodle like the TNG movies turned out to be.

189. Well I couldn’t leave Kirk and Spock out of it, now could I? I’m still hoping that they will have a poster at Comic Con even if they don’t have a big panel. Or perhaps announce the title in the trailer. What worries me is that Bob said that the teaser will be “super soon”, but is this their version of soon or ours?

180: “The ideas are interesting in and of themselves…but not as they’re presented in Prometheus, I’d argue. It doesn’t do anything with them,”

Not to derail the thread into Prometheus territory, but it wasn’t that kind of movie, Jack. Even Blade Runner wasn’t that kind of movie, and the same or similar criticisms can be applied to Blade Runner as well. I don’t know about you, but unless it’s a documentary, I don’t go to movies for explanations, I go for illustrations of an idea that entertain me. Art HAS philosophy in it, but art does not replicate the exact function of philosophy. For explanations I read or, better yet, go sit in the woods and think.

I mean, I don’t actually BELIEVE in the ancient astronaut theory of life on earth — but it makes a good story in the movies for me to enjoy.

Prometheus wasn’t genius, but it was more clever than its detractors understood. As the “half a billion miles” thing proves, some of the “plot holes” actually come from its detractors quickly forgetting what they were shown.

178. Hugh Hoyland – June 16, 2012

I feel the same way! And I didn’t have that expectation going in, so it was a nice surprise.

BTW, Prometheus actually looks best in REAL 3D on the smaller screen, believe it or not.

The IMAX 3D version is too dark and the larger screen really pushes the image magnification of the cameras the movie was shot with beyond where they can go without revealing the digital origins of the capture medium.

The thing that gets me abouthe nerd rage overPrometheus is that Ridley Scott never really promised all the answers to the mysteries surrounding the Alien Saga ,
But, that is exactly what fans were expecting .

It’s not about explanations or answers. I don’t want them. It just bugged me that some were saying how profound Prometheus is, and I just don’t agree. It diesn’t have to be profound, and you’re right, it’s not that kind of movie…

My only point is that I worry that the “Trek is about profundity and moral allegories” people would prefer a preachy, faux-profound, clunky Trek filled with greeting card wisdom. They seem to have something against fun, great characters, emotion and a hell of an adventure.

Bob will never admit it, but the term “face melter” that he has been using has a secondary meaning as a clue from him to us on why Khan will look different. Khan is going to have his appearance altered in the movie….possibly by Weller’s character.

When inflation is taken into account Godfather II was a much bigger hit than Godfather III…Return of the Jedi made more money ($744 million) than the inferior Star Wars prequel The Phantom Menace ($715 million)

Also, when adjusted for inflation Alien made $249 million and it’s sequel Aliens made $181 million.

Why are peoples opinions that differ from yours B.S.?
seriously, one of the great things about a free society is that people can have differing opinions on anything any topic big or small.

If everyone liked everything or never spoke up about when something pops up they don’t enjoy or like, it would be a pretty boring place to live.

Seriously there are a number of movies that I love that the mainstream public don’t really like or get, but I don’t get up in arms when talking to people online or in person about those films, if they point out what they feel are the faults of the film. cause I respect their opinions, and even if they go contrary to my like or love of a film, it doesn’t change my personal opinion on them.Great example is I really got a kick out of cow boys and aliens last summer, but I know I am in the minority of having liked that film, it doesn’t change my opinon of it to read or hear people point out what flaws they feel are in the film.

further more you can enjoy a movie, scratch you can be really entertained by a movie, but still and see that there are some pretty big flaws in it.
It doesn’t make you less of a fan to point out things that you don’t like about it or potential problems you are afraid of when you read comments made by the film makers in interviews.

FILM LIKE ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE, ITS NOT GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE ALL OF THE TIME. Even the most popular film ever made is going to have to people who just don’t like it and it is their right to have that opinion and its their right to be able to express that opinion.

217,
Inflation has nothing to do with what MJ was posting. Box office rankings are not adjusted for inflation.
any adjusted for inflation charts are merely to give context for number of tickets sold. If they were anything more than that. Avatar Titanic, Avengers, and Dark Knight would not be listed as the top 4 grossing movies of all time.

MJ is right in what he posted in the context of what he is talking about.
the only thing that I made note of earlier was that his gross for part II was only the domestic gross where as the part III was the world wide gross.
but there is no edit button on here so he cant edit to make a notation about that. my guess is he used boxoffice mojo as his guide and on box office mojo for GF part II they only have domestic where as part III they have worldwide and domestic.

Agreed. With Inception, the thing I liked about it was the puzzle of the plot, so to speak. Of course, there are some profound messages there if you want to look for them, but on the surface it’s a nothing more than a fun maze, I think. And it doesn’t hold your hand all the way through. It expects the audience to pay attention and keep up.

219 that’s what it would make today if all things aside from the ticket price were there same.
You have to remember the movie industry today is much different than it was even just 15 years ago let alone 30 40 years ago.
a movie that was very successful then under todays circumstances might either perform better or worse.
also you have to keep in mind there are more screens and more venues than there were as well. all of these factors come into play.
the adjusted for inflation should never really be considered anything more than interesting comparison nothing more.

But did you think maybe Inception may have been a bit over-plotted, at the expense of its characters? Seems a valid criticism. But it’s been so long since I saw it I can’t say for sure one way or another.

@225. Inception is not the kind of movie where you need great characters. The overall concept, and the story delivering the concept, were the supreme focus. In movies like that, workmanlike performances and characterization are all you need. See 2001, District 9. Metropolis and Moon as examples.

Ivory, sorry, but your numbers are for DOMESTIC GROSS only. I can’t find a chart on the internet that has rankings for TOTAL World wide gross, so lets instead take your example where you claim that Return of the Jedi made more money, adjusted for inflation, than The Phantom Menace.

In this case, Jedi only made $166M in 1983 ticket dollars in foreign distribution, while Phantom Menace made $553 million in 1999 ticket dollars in foreign distribution. So, if I apply the same ticket inflation factors that Box Office Mojo used to bring both movies up to domestic adjusted 2012 ticket dollars (i.e, 2.4 for Jedi and 1.5 for Menace), we get adjusted in 2012 ticket dollars for these movies for the foreign distribution amounts as:

— ROTJ Foreign – inflated to 2012 = $389M

— TPM Foreign – inflated to 2012 = $830M

So then, if we go back and add these to the “domestic totals adjusted for inflation” that Ivory referenced, we get the following Worldwide Totals Adjusted for Inflation as:

— ROTJ = $745M (domestic)+ $389M (foreign) = $1.13 B

— TPM = $715M (domestic)+ $830M (foreign) = $1.55 B

….thus, DEMONSTRATIVELY proving my case that long hiatus’s in franchise products to not mean much to the bottom line.

Box Office Mojo still lists “Gone with the Wind” as the most successful film, at $1.6 billion (domestic) gross adjusted for inflation. Double it to include foreign revenues. One 1939 US dollar is worth $16.53 today.

Whereas inflation evens the paying field, the movie industry has changed drastically in the last few decades. When I was born in 1964, there were far fewer cinemas in urban centers, and even fewer in rural areas, where people went to drive-ins, or some hole-in-the-wall craphouse on Main Street. Popular films would play for at least a year, and there was no home theater market to speak of until the early 1980s.

Now, it’s multiplexes everywhere, and three-format launches, Blu-Ray and cable, etc., with a major international push to open modern cinemas. Apples-to-apples comparisons are almost ridiculous when one simply looks at gross revenue adjusted for inflation.

inflation doesn’t level the playing field for movies though AJ, only if all other things are equal would it. And it the case of the movie industry as I stated and you stated as well. There are many more screens today than there were going back even just 10 years ago.

@233. That being said, less people are going to the theaters today, and you hardly ever see movies lasting beyond a month at your cinema, given so many more movies are being made. So there are negative trends as well.

further more a successful movie from 30 years ago, in todays market might perform horribly compared to how it did 30 years ago.
or a less successful movie from 30 years ago might perform better than it did 30 years ago, cause todays audiences have different tastes than 30 years ago or 40 years ago or even just 15 years ago.

My local AMC did a total revamp. They now serve alcoholic drinks at a separate bar section, and the concession stand is now offering cheesecake, shakes, fries, sandwiches, pizza, among other things. It’s cool. Looks like they are trying to give people more reasons to come to a theater. But maybe they don’t think big enough.

I’ve had a personal dream to operate a film school/movie studio/historical film museum whose public face (that is, the actual ENTRANCE to the compound) would be a movie palace that showed not only current movies, but showcased the work being done deeper in the property by students and yes, even professionals.

Dioramas of storyteling throughout the ages, artifacts from the early days of moviemaking, displays on techniques and processes no longer used, educational facts related to the movies that people may not know, such as how the gorgeous Hedy Lamarr’s SCIENTIFIC EXPLOITS changed the world! A place where the public, the professionals, and the students could all rub elbows together for a unique experience.

@237. In some cases, that it true, but in many cases I don’t think so. Look at how successful the throwback movies like True Grit, Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, Moneyball, The Social Network, The Kings Speech, and I can name many more….these “throwback” movies (excepting of the spcific content) are the types that could have been shot in any decade and done well.

exactly MJ, everything is made and marketed to be extremely front loaded now. And as someone who has worked in the Exhibition end of the industry for a number of years now it saddens me that you see that now.

A lot of it has to do with the studios being for the most part merely a part of larger corporations, now and having to answer to stock holders of the larger company that the studio is merely a subsidiary of, that studios execs are less likely to take risks or let the movie grow its legs and play out.

take Cleopatra(the most expensive movie produced in its day) for example it took ten years for it to finally break even, it almost bankrupted the studio, but Fox was willing to take that risk, because it was a great movie audiences and critics both loved. And there are lots of examples like that from the days when the studios were not just subsidiaries

Today you see stuff like John Carter, which is a lot better than the marketing implied it would be, being written off as a flop after just a few weeks.

MJ your right in your comment 241 that there are certain film that are tieless and would do very well no matter what period they are in. but there are a number of films that would be reacted to very differently by the public both positively and negatively.

It would give a whole new literal meaning when we say “that movie STINKS!”

;-D

# 242

Agreed with danielcraig~

John Carter was much better than the sabotage campaign against it would have you believe. IMO, it was a good movie killed my movie politics (the bitter feud between Disney/Pixar and Andrew Stanton).
That’s a damn shame, too. I really like that movie…

MJ And its sad that it was written off like that, cause if they would have marketed it differently and or allowed time play out that film could have had a much wider theatrical audience than it did. Now after the fact people discovering it on home video are realizing wow this is a good movie.

And don’t even get me started on the politics of the movie exhibition industry, there are great theatres sitting blocks away from each other that are prevented from getting movies, because the other theatre hogs everything even though the theatre not getting the release is just as good if not a better in terms of on screen presentation.

One local theatre actually had to file a lawsuit against such a theatre 2 miles away,hogging everything, in order to start getting their fair share of films. the court sided with them, now both venues are able to get the films and both do great business.

246 Rich Ross did the same thing to Winnie The Pooh last year, its obvious him ditching the movie into theatres opposite the opening weekend of the final Harry Potter Film was nothing more than him trying to snuff out 2D animation at Disney once and for all.

I am looking forward to seeing the Alan Horn years play out at Disney, he is a great studio exec and loves and appreciates both the film industry and and film in general. He is responsible for a lot of a great films during his time at WB. one of the few execs that actually will give films room to stretch their legs and give them a chance to prove themselves.
I like to imagine what we would see from him in an environment where there was no answering to parent companies.

251, not everyone forgot though.
even though I have a 3D 1080p HD DLP projector and a giant 12 foot wide screen to project on, and have a vast catalog of over 1500 movies on bluray, nothing to me beats going out and watching a brand new movie on the giant screens of the movie palaces here in L.A., with a audience.
I cant tell you how many movies that play out so much better with an audience as opposed to sitting and watching them at home even with the set up I have.

I haven’t forgotten either. I prefer going to the movies. I would say that in 10 years we’re going to be the crabby dudes yelling at kids to get off our lawns, but the kids will all be IN their i-nfotainmentPods, made by Apple, a full surround 3D sensory experience, and likely won’t be running across ANY lawns.

And not too long after that, there probably won’t be any kids being made at all.

And not too long after THAT is when the American Indians come out, look around, and say, “Well it took long enough, but we finally got our land back.”

You have a twelve foot movie screen in your home? HOT DAMN!! Must be nice when you have guests over. Like Daniel Craig. ;-)

As for “John Carter”, Disney screwed up by dropping “of Mars” from the title, thinking it would be recieved like “Mars Needs Moms” which was a bomb at the box office.

The irony is, by dropping “of Mars” from the title, all that was left was a non-descript title that people ignored. So that fact that it bombed in theatres was a self-fulfilled prophecy made by Disney itself.

253,
yeah I am very proud of my home theatre, and my screen is actually cut from a real commercial theatre screen, that was being changed out and discarded and so they cut me off the size I wanted for home, and gave it to me. I have made masking to adjust to different aspect ratios, and purchased curtains, D-Box Motion code chairs. the whole 9 yards.
I am not married yet, haven’t met that perfect girl I want to raise a family with so I spend my disposable money on things that bring me enjoyment. cause hopefully one day in the not to distant future I wont be able to because their will be other more important priorities in my life, but till that day.

They should have kept the Peter Gabriel song in for all the John Carter trailers. They should have even included it in the movie with that wonderful orchestral arrangement they had in the first trailer.

After the 2009 Trek, which was not a bad movie, I’ve decided it satisfied zero cravings to see a star trek movie. It’s just a reboot of some other universe and adds nothing to “Star Trek”. I have no excitement for a sequel.

But Star Trek 2009 was so SHALLOW even though it was done extremely well & fun..the root of the story was retarded with huge gaping plot holes. Why can’t they see that when they are writing the script???!?!?!??

@289. Outstanding quote. Can’t help feeling that this is going to be an awesome sequel. All of the great trilogies and series of movies have one thing in common — the second movie is the best, and cements the series as classic. Think Empire Strikes, Back, The Wrath of Khan, Lethal Weapon II, Aliens, Toy Story II, Terminator II, The Road Warrior, The Dark Knight, LOTR – The Two Towers, The Gofather – Part II, First Blook Part II

By contrast, look at most series where the 2nd movie faltered, and you get mixed opinion about whether the series are all that great: Transformers 2, Iron Man II, Pirates of the Caribbean II, Die Hard 2, Staying Alive, Highlander 2, and Speed 2.

I have already! There would be plenty of non traditional concession stand food as well as the expected stuff.

And I won’t go into detail about the Popcorn Robots. Some things you just have to be inside my head to appreciate properly. :-)

Oh, the public part of this thing would be a fairly spectacular place to go even if there’s no movie playing you really wanted to see. Something I would have designed in part with the aim to inspire children to dream, and to inspire the more grown-up children to DO.

Instead of only trailers, a student short film made on the property could premiere after the trailers and before the main attraction in each of the theaters.

Each theater would have a poster of the movie playing in that theater, and a smaller poster, which students would be required to make for their short films, would appear next to the main attraction, as a bonus feature. Just so that they feel like they are making and showing real movies.

Of course, students would also have their own dedicated theater, and perhaps a series of projection rooms so that they could do peer review on each other’s work — and they would actually do peer review work like that in the PUBLIC space, so that students in the post-postproduction phase and the public being entertained mixed with each other in the same space vs. everyone being in their own little universe.

Movies wouldn’t get made if it wasn’t for audiences.

I think audiences should feel like they are connected to the process as well.

“And I won’t go into detail about the Popcorn Robots. Some things you just have to be inside my head to appreciate properly. :-)”
________

Mmmkay…

:)

“Oh, the public part of this thing would be a fairly spectacular place to go even if there’s no movie playing you really wanted to see. Something I would have designed in part with the aim to inspire children to dream, and to inspire the more grown-up children to DO.”

Damn you; again, one of those things I just would have to be inside your head to appreciate properly! Nevermind. I forgive you…Since I can always imagine what a place such as the one you’re referring to would look like.

(….Well…. YES, dmduncan; I CAN dream too!!!)
:)

“Movies wouldn’t get made if it wasn’t for audiences.

I think audiences should feel like they are connected to the process as well.”

I do agree with you….up to a point.

I personally wouldn’t want to feel too connected to the process.

To me, it would be akin to finding out the secrets behind a magician’s famous tricks. which is not very good, in my opinion, when you enjoy surprises as much as I do.

Recursion (Ok, maybe repetition is the edition but poetic licence, etc.) is the version that I’m advocating for the next title.

If there’s any kernel of truth to the postulate “Any delay to a Star Trek release makes it better.” then I’m forced to consider making my next Trek view reservation at The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Let’s see…I know where my towel is. Now if I can just find that TARDIS signaling beacon…well, no hurry because I know that that one is the one that’s gonna blow my universe away!

No, I know who Sid Grauman was. But I’m an outsider looking in. Wasn’t Grauman in the biz from a young age? My vision is big enough, but it is very very rare when somebody believes in an outsider enough to back him.

He wanted to make a sci-fi/musical film about aliens using their music to take over the world. He approached Gene Roddenberry about doing it, but I seem to recall it was at the same time Gene was putting TMP together. McCartney also approached Speilberg and, I think, Scorsese. The project got scrapped.

At an award ceremony in January 2010, Sir Paul McCartney was there as a nominee with his then-fiancee (now married). Someone told him and the new Star Trek cast sitting together that both were at the awards dinner. There is video of Paul McCartney meeting the cast and talk about real and wonderful fanboy stuff going on, especially with Chris Pine and Paul McCartney. The delight for those two, in particular, was so tangible. Truly wonderful and delightfully funny.

Who knew…:) I suspect that Paul McCartney may be a (longtime?) trekkie…

The Color of Money wasn’t negatively impacted at the box-office even though it came out 25 years after the movie it was a sequel to, The Hustler came out.
Just another example that the number of years between films don’t matter in terms of how the movie will perform.

ll the griping about the long wait comes from that special sector of Trek fan who always pull out the “respect for the fan base” garbage. People think that Trek is their personal property and if Paramount doesn’t do it exactly the way those select fans think they should than Paramount is crapping on the fan base.

Forget that the last film was hugely successful without the fans. The movie made big box office from the general movie going public. Trek fans helped but they alone would not have made the film a success.

Paramount is in business to make money. They will do what they think is best regardless of the constant whining of the entitled fans. People will see this film whether the “entitled” Trek fans show up or not.